Apparently, Sampras still thinks he's the GOAT!!!

So I talked to a guy who I’ve seen at many tennis as well as basketball events and I asked him if he got any interesting replies to his question at the Legends event at the Garden last month regarding his “Who’s The Greatest?” line. And he said yes. He said that Sampras basically said that he is the greatest because he subdued his greatest rival, Agassi, in every slam he faced him except one or two, and Federer has been beaten time and again in slams by his greatest rival, Nadal.
I pointed out that Sampras and Agassi were separated by one year while Fed and Rafa are divided by five, but Sampras apparently shook his head when probed similarly and said, it doesn’t matter. You can only be considered the greatest if you have beaten your greatest rival.

Granted, this is not a quote from the horse's mouth, so it could be fabricated. OTOH, he has made such statements in the past, so I wouldn't put it past him to come up with such nonsense.

If he indeed still thinks that, someone needs to remind him that he was the one who came up with the "slams are what determine the GOAT" crap.. Sorry Pete, you're not in reckoning anymore.. My new year wish for 2013 is for Federer to erase more of your records, and for Nadal to surpass you sometime in the future.

Other than his domination of Agassi, there is really no credible argument supporting the thesis of "goat Sampras" at this point. Poor Sampras doesn't even have most WTF titles anymore nor # of weeks at #1. His # of master titles is also way below other top players in open era.

Sampras was a fantastic player, no doubt about it. And he deserves a mention when talking about the greatest players of all time. However Agassi himself said Federer is the best player he's faced. Besides that Nadal is only dominant on clay. Everywhere else it's a mostly even rivalry. Nadal and Federer's peaks never overlapped. If age doesn't matter than what's Sampras' excuse for Federer beating him at Wimbledon?

I'm afraid Sampras has missed the bus. He should've focused on 1 or 2 French Opens instead of racking up Wimbledons where could just serve his way to the championship. The only time he got deep at the FO (beating a choking Courier in his last good major tournament) he got destroyed at Wimbledon.

Unlike the top 3 today who reach the FO/Wimbledon semis for fun.

Sampras is just mad that he's a complete non-factor in the GOAT conversation, since his only big records (weeks at no 1 and number of majors) have been broken.

Oh and Nadal has a better case for being the GOAT than Sampras has, I won't even mention Federer who is 2 leagues above Sampras in the discussions.

I'm afraid Sampras has missed the bus. He should've focused on 1 or 2 French Opens instead of racking up Wimbledons where could just serve his way to the championship. The only time he got deep at the FO (beating a choking Courier in his last good major tournament) he got destroyed at Wimbledon.

Unlike the top 3 today who reach the FO/Wimbledon semis for fun.

Sampras is just mad that he's a complete non-factor in the GOAT conversation, since his only big records (weeks at no 1 and number of majors) have been broken.

Oh and Nadal has a better case for being the GOAT than Sampras has, I won't even mention Federer who is 2 leagues above Sampras in the discussions.

Click to expand...

Some day the reporter will ask Sampras about who's the greater player between him and Nadal. I wonder how Pete will react.

Nadal doesn't have a better case for being the GOAT than Sampras. Let's not get carried away. When Nadal dominates the tour for several years at the very top then he can be compared to Sampras.

Click to expand...

Sampras never dominated the tour. The only tournament he dominated was Wimbledon and mostly thanks to his great serve and the courts being extremely fast. Nadal not only dominated 1 major but an entire surface while Sampras never cared for any grass warm-up tournament. Rafa has at least 2 seasons better than any season that Sampras had in his career (2008/2010).

Sampras never had a rival who could constantly challenge him, Agassi was gone for at least 3 of Sampras' prime years. Nadal since 2005 has been better and better while Federer got older. Nadal had to CONSTANTLY FACE 2 OTHER GOATs in his career while Sampras faced who again? Old Becker in one year. Rafter in another. Pioline in another.

It's not even comparable. If Nadal wins another major or 2 (and I'm sure he will), Sampras will be even more forgotten.

stupid sampras and his ego, Federer is true GOAT and he knows it, just because nadal has a leading h2h does not mean federer is not GOAT, he could not even win a single french open lol and he is greatest please !!! {if he said that ofcourse} Fed should stop saying things like pete is my hero. The whole things sounds bs

Sampras never dominated the tour. The only tournament he dominated was Wimbledon and mostly thanks to his great serve and the courts being extremely fast. Nadal not only dominated 1 major but an entire surface while Sampras never cared for any grass warm-up tournament.

Sampras never had a rival who could constantly challenge him, Agassi was gone for at least 3 of Sampras' prime years. Nadal since 2005 has been better and better while Federer got older.

Click to expand...

He won 2 slams a year 4 times. He had 286 weeks as the world #1 and 6 YE #1's. He also won the YEC 5x to Nadal's 0. Plus he has 3 more slams...

Sampras was a fantastic player, no doubt about it. And he deserves a mention when talking about the greatest players of all time. However Agassi himself said Federer is the best player he's faced. Besides that Nadal is only dominant on clay. Everywhere else it's a mostly even rivalry. Nadal and Federer's peaks never overlapped. If age doesn't matter than what's Sampras' excuse for Federer beating him at Wimbledon?

stupid sampras and his ego, Federer is true GOAT and he knows it, just because nadal has a leading h2h does not mean federer is not GOAT, he could not even win a single french open lol and he is greatest please !!!{if he said that ofcourse}

Click to expand...

Why should Sampras have a better case for GOAThood when it was FEDERER who was willing to pay the price for losing to Nadal every year at the FO (by finally winning the title in 2009) while Sampras was just happy racking up Wimbledons and not caring about not only the FO but entire clay. Why should we diminish Federer for having a 0-5 record against Nadal at the FO (and thus making the total major h2h look weak) when it was Federer who was willing to take the risk! Sampras should just shut it - he had a great career and all but he's the past. Apart from the only questionable big record he has remaining (6 years ended no 1 in a row - but check some of the years he ended no 1 - f.e. 1996 or 1998 ) he has absolutely nothing on Federer and Nadal.

According to Sampras, Federer would have a better case for being the GOAT if he just said "screw the FO!" like Sampras. He would be sitting on 16 majors and not have a 10-18 h2h against Nadal but something like 8-8 or 9-9 instead (Nadal wouldn't probably get to him mentally on grass/hard courts like he did beating him 3-4 times on clay prior to their meetings on grass/hard!).

Federer was willing to take the risk and take the consequences like a man - unlike Sampras who didn't want to suffer on clay for that 1 FO title that would've lifted his status in the GOAT discussions. And believe me Sampras would get owned by Nadal in straight sets every single time they would play on clay, so he's no saint. If you put Sampras instead of Federer (at the same age) in the exact same matches that Fedal played in majors, Sampras out of 10 matches would already be down 0-5 from the FO alone and 0-15 in sets for the matter.

I don't like this GOAT talk. Everybody's looking at the game differently, and I definitely don't think people should compare players from different time periods because they were all different physically, mentally and technically. Why can't we all just agree that the ones in the GOAT category are all extremely good players and not bother comparing them to one another?

Overall? They're close. Sampras had 3 more slams, a bunch of WTF and a lot more weeks at #1 (logical since hard is the majority surface, clay the minority). Nadal has the golden career slam and a lot more master titles. He's also the #1 on clay, something that Sampras is not on any surface. So it's a toss and it depends on which criteria you value the most.

He won 2 slams a year 4 times. He had 286 weeks as the world #1 and 6 YE #1's. He also won the YEC 5x to Nadal's 0. Plus he has 3 more slams...

Sampras > Nadal by a big margin at the moment.

Click to expand...

Sampras didn't have to face a 5-7 year younger Djokovic, Nadal and Murray on every surface all the time. Instead he played Agassi who besides 9 months of great form in 1995 was almost a non-factor until 1999 when Sampras already was already sitting at 11-12 majors.

Sampras didn't have to face a 5-7 year younger Djokovic, Nadal and Murray on every surface all the time. Instead he played Agassi who besides 9 months of great form in 1995 was almost a non-factor until 1999 when Sampras already was already sitting at 11-12 majors.

Click to expand...

Yes but all Nadal's important stats are from clay. He's not a great champion on hardcourt and on grass he's got a fantastic record but he's not even in the league of Sampras. Sampras has more titles on 2 of the 3 surfaces.

Nadal is the clay court GOAT only. Sampras has him beat in every other category on every other surface.

Yes but all Nadal's important stats are from clay. He's not a great champion on hardcourt and on grass he's got a fantastic record but he's not even in the league of Sampras. Sampras has more titles on 2 of the 3 surfaces.

Nadal is the clay court GOAT only. Sampras has him beat in every other category on every other surface.

Click to expand...

However, in Nadal's favor, Sampras is almost 0 on clay. He has never even made it to the finals of RG. Nadal, OTOH has made multiple finals in all slams.

I think the Nadal vs Sampras argument will boil down to who has more GSs at the end. And Nadal is almost certainly clay GOAT.

Yes but all Nadal's important stats are from clay. He's not a great champion on hardcourt and on grass he's got a fantastic record but he's not even in the league of Sampras. Sampras has more titles on 2 of the 3 surfaces.

Nadal is the clay court GOAT only. Sampras has him beat in every other category on every other surface.

Click to expand...

This is true but one could also say that Nadal on his best surface is better than Sampras on his best one. Same with their worst surfaces.

The only reason Nadal doesn't have the "most weeks at no 1" record is because of Federer. Had there been no Federer, Nadal would be a constant no 1 for a comfortable 5-6 years in 2005-2010/2011 without any breaks for the matter. Instead he had to work his *** off in 2008/2009 just to stay there for 30-40 weeks. Who was there to challenge Sampras for the top spot, besides Agassi for brief 20 weeks in 1995? Moya, Rios or Kafelnikov? Sampras was sitting on the top spot winning 3-4 titles a year (1 major with no other finals) and being completely gone for 3 months in a year. Hell, if Agassi didn't have a brilliant 1999 Sampras would probably end the year at no 1 despite missing 2 majors. Can you imagine anyone ending the year no 1 these days missing 2 majors? Well Nadal has missed 1 (and he would have to miss another) but good luck with him ending the year at no 1. Since 2004 you have to GOAT for an entire year to end the year at no 1.

Sampras' competition is HIGHLY overrated - some even bring Kuerten, Corretja, Moya, Muster or Courier as some of his biggest rivals but not notice that they were great on clay mostly when Pete at the same time was too busy losing in the 1st rounds to some journeymen.

If Nadal exceeds Sampras's 14 GS record, he will have a strong case. If he does it by winning 1-2 non RG slams, then he is almost a slam dunk better than Pete.

Click to expand...

If gets to 14 GS by winning 3 more FO's Sampras will still be great IMO. Courtesy of him still being far superior on 2/3's of the tour + the weeks as number #1. To me that's one of Nadal's biggest drawbacks, he's only been #1 for a small period of time compared to other greats. Granted Federer and now Djokovic have been in his way but it's still a knock.

“Everyone wants to name the one guy each generation has their guy,” Sampras said. “In the ’60s it was Laver. You had Borg (in the 1970s), Ivan (Lendl) and John (McEnroe) during the ’80s and myself and Andre in the ’90s. It’s hard to answer because each decade has their guy and I think now we have Rafa who has done everything in the game, won all the majors, won the Olympics and has a winning record against Roger. There’s no clear best player of all time. Each decade has their guy. Put Borg and Don Budge up there too.”

Regardless of Nadal’s final Grand Slam total, Sampras says the muscular Mallorcan has already earned his place as one of the top three greatest players of all time.

“Rafa’s definitely up there,” Sampras said. “You gotta put him in the top three or four and it’s not over yet. He’s in the middle of his career.”

If gets to 14 GS by winning 3 more FO's Sampras will still be great IMO. Courtesy of him still being far superior on 2/3's of the tour + the weeks as number #1. To me that's one of Nadal's biggest drawbacks, he's only been #1 for a small period of time compared to other greats. Granted Federer and now Djokovic have been in his way but it's still a knock.

Click to expand...

Good point. Nadal does indeed have a huge disadvantage in the lack of #1 weeks. Considering that, I would say Nadal needs to reach 15GS with at least 1 non RG slam and rack up a few more #1 weeks to be considered greater than Sampras IMO.

Granted, this is not a quote from the horse's mouth, so it could be fabricated. OTOH, he has made such statements in the past, so I wouldn't put it past him to come up with such nonsense.

If he indeed still thinks that, someone needs to remind him that he was the one who came up with the "slams are what determine the GOAT" crap.. Sorry Pete, you're not in reckoning anymore.. My new year wish for 2013 is for Federer to erase more of your records, and for Nadal to surpass you sometime in the future.

Click to expand...

Champions always secretly believe they are the best, you have to, it's part of the mental makeup.

Sampras in his prime said he believed he was "Unbeatable", this is necessary to be great. Without believieng that you may as well throw in the towel before the match.

Overall? They're close. Sampras had 3 more slams, a bunch of WTF and a lot more weeks at #1 (logical since hard is the majority surface, clay the minority). Nadal has the golden career slam and a lot more master titles. He's also the #1 on clay, something that Sampras is not on any surface. So it's a toss and it depends on which criteria you value the most.

Click to expand...

Actually, you could argue that Nadal has surpassed Sampras, based on the criteria that Pete fans use to judge greatness.. my post from another thread:

In the Federer vs Sampras thread, we've seen plenty of dissing of stats and selective cherry picking (more like distorting) facts to make a case for Sampras overall.

Nadal trails Pete by 3 slams, the same # that Pete trails Federer by. So let's apply the "lessons" learned from that thread to Nadal vs Sampras, as the symmetry b/n the two cases seems perfectl:

1. Handling of nearest rival
- Pete fans claimed Sampras would overall edge out Federer because he handled his nearest rival better. Nadal has handled his nearest rival much better than Sampras did his (Winner: Nadal by a country mile here)

2. Match ups don't matter; only overall level of play does
- Since match-ups don't really matter, you can remove the Sampras serve vs Nadal standing way back out of the equation. Now to assess level of play: Nadal has a winning h2h against the other members of the top 4. And given that he has a massive lead against the arguably the GOAT, you could safely say that his level of play tops Federer (ergo Sampras). (Big advantage Nadal).

3. Better to lose early than losing in the finals
- Nadal has shown remarkable consistency in losing early at his weakest slam (USO) to avoid meeting "da man" Federer on that surface. However, Sampras has beaten plenty of RG champions at his weakest slam, which should be virtual finals -- not really doing a good job. (Winner - Nadal)

4. Better to lose to journeymen
- one word: Rosol.
Many Pete fans endorse the opinion that if someone like Soderling can do it, so can Pete. Pete was journeyman-level on clay, so it's pretty obvious that they consider Soderling to be a journeyman as well. Feel free to add the "mug" Soderling to the list.

(Winner - Nadal by a country mile).

5. Strong competition prevented Pete from achieving more
- if you've beaten the GOAT on all surfaces, you can pretty safely claim that any other competition is easy to surmount. Sampras never faced another GOAT candidate in his wins; Nadal did in 7/11 slam wins. (Winner: Nadal, and it's not even close)

6. Health condition
- Pete fans always cite Pete's anemia as one of the reasons that kept him from winning more. But Nadal's condition is worse. He has missed a few slams on account of his knees; AFAIK, Pete never a missed a slam due to his blood condition.
(Winner - Nadal)

7. Shot-by shot comparison:
Pete has the serve, volley, FH and speed. Nadal has his FH, defense, BH and incredible retrieving ability. And Nadal is the best volleyer of the current era (per McEnroe).
(Winner - Tied)

Before the Fedal era, and especially during the Sampras/Agassi era, clay was an afterthought. It was Nadal's ability to break out of the clay court specialist mold, and Federer's ability to succeed on clay that has raised clay's profile, at least since the 90s (when I started following tennis).

Champions always secretly believe they are the best, you have to, it's part of the mental makeup.

Sampras in his prime said he believed he was "Unbeatable", this is necessary to be great. Without believieng that you may as well throw in the towel before the match.

Click to expand...

but then there is this the inconvenient factor of reality... Sampras was not even remotely unbeatable as Federer or Djokovic in their primes. may be at Wimbledon, but even then we saw what happened in 1996.

But Sampras isn't the king of his pet slam. Nadal is the king of RolandGarros, with 7 slams, and NO ONE else has 7 slams at RolandGarros. Whereas Wimbledon has two tied slam kings, Pete Sampras and roger federer. In fact, Nadal is the ONLY slam king in open era history.

But Sampras isn't the king of his pet slam. Nadal is the king of RolandGarros, with 7 slams, and NO ONE else has 7 slams at RolandGarros. Whereas Wimbledon has two tied slam kings, Pete Sampras and roger federer. In fact, Nadal is the ONLY slam king in open era history.

Before the Fedal era, and especially during the Sampras/Agassi era, clay was an afterthought. It was Nadal's ability to break out of the clay court specialist mold, and Federer's ability to succeed on clay that has raised clay's profile, at least since the 90s (when I started following tennis).

Click to expand...

It has to do with how many tournaments are on the surfaces.

Hard - 50%
Clay - 40%
Grass - 10%

It's easier to dominate grass because it's a super specialist surface. Hardest to dominate hardcourts due to the near ubiquity of the events on tour, so Federer's achievements there are almost equivalent to me.

Good point. Nadal does indeed have a huge disadvantage in the lack of #1 weeks. Considering that, I would say Nadal needs to reach 15GS with at least 1 non RG slam and rack up a few more #1 weeks to be considered greater than Sampras IMO.

Click to expand...

Only if # of weeks at # 1 is your supreme criterium. It doesn't have to be. 21 masters to 11 is a huge difference. And all 4 slams is priceless too. If you do it by surface, then of course Sampras is head and shoulders above Nadal on grass and hard but as I said before, Nadal is THE #1 on clay (all time). Sampras is not the #1 anywhere: hard, grass or overall. That should count for something too. And he's WAY worse on clay than Rafa is on either hard or grass.

Other than his domination of Agassi, there is really no credible argument supporting the thesis of "goat Sampras" at this point. Poor Sampras doesn't even have most WTF titles anymore nor # of weeks at #1. His # of master titles is also way below other top players in open era.

Click to expand...

There is no credible argument supporting ANY HANDS DOWN GOAT. Too difficult to compare eras. The only thing we can universally factually point out is "greatest of their era"

There is no credible argument supporting ANY HANDS DOWN GOAT. Too difficult to compare eras. The only thing we can universally factually point is "greatest of their era"

Click to expand...

Amen. It would be easy enough to make an argument for Fed being best of open era but all time offers all kinds of difficulties because the tour (and the sport itself) has changed so much. Even comparisons within open era have a measure of awkwardness. The AO's status for instance has changed drastically over time. Carpet was a major surface in the past and has completely disappeared. Etc, etc.. Comparisons are never more than approximations in any case.

There is no credible argument supporting ANY HANDS DOWN GOAT. Too difficult to compare eras. The only thing we can universally factually point out is "greatest of their era"

Click to expand...

I whole heartedly agree with this statement. I love Roger, but I don't like saying GOAT, since you can only speculate what would have happen, and create hypothetical scenarios. I am very happy to say Federer is the Greatest of his era, and Nadal the greatest Clay courter of his era, since that is proven fact. But comparing generations, surfaces, training, depth of competition, technology is not that simple.

Sampras was the greatest of his era. Federer the greatest of his. Nadal greatest clay courter of his era. Borg the greatest of his era.